repeated .... nova net :))
All revolutionary new scientific theories are met with some initial criticism. Testing, discoveries, and circumstantial evidence sometimes make them almost universally accepted.
New scientific ideas are accepted or rejected based on compelling evidence.
New scientific ideas are accepted or rejected based on compelling evidence.
Observational evidence
Scientific laws are based on scientific experiments, scientific conclusions after exhaustive tests, and they are also based on formerly scientific discoveries and experiments. Scientific evidence without a conclusive proof may be a false evidence. Scientific evidence doesn't exist. Science is not based on evidences, but on real results originated from a theory. Results are solid, palpable, real and cannot be doubted.
I doubt it.. especially seeing as how lately a lot of discoveries actually confirmed certain religious beliefs. Religion is ultimately about "faith" -- which is belief in the absense of evidence. Religions only fail if they're dependent upon objective evidence.
Scientific evidence is allowed into the courtroom if it is generally accepted by the relevant scientific community. It does not offer any guidance on reliability. the evidence is presented in the trial and the jury decides if it can be used.
The most widely accepted answer to this question is no, there is no scientific evidence that angels exist. There are some who believe that seeing science cannot disprove angels exist either, the evidence is inconclusive. This is known as the burden of proof.
when there s proof to back it up with evidence or an experiment to test the hypothesis
Like all accepted scientific theories, there is a general consensus amongst scientists across the world that there is enough evidence from observation and experimentation to support it.
There is no accepted scientific evidence that Yetis actually exist. For this reason we can only fantasize regarding their living arrangements.
Henry Hess